Big Food Says They Will Label GMOs … But Is There More to a Story?

The world’s largest food companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it illegally) to equivocate being compulsory to tag a genetically engineered (GMOs) mixture in their products.

But with a Jul 1 deadline for complying with Vermont’s GMO labeling law on a horizon, a handful of a largest multinational food companies have announced they will now tag GMOs—not only since they will be forced to, though since as General Mills claims, they trust “you should know what’s in your food and how we make ours.”


Have consumers won a GMO labeling battle? Have these food companies that so fiercely fought to keep labels off their products unequivocally separate with a Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a multi-billion-dollar lobbying organisation that is still perplexing to overturn Vermont’s law in a courts, and preempt it in Congress?

To be sure, consumer vigour has had an impact on brands’ decisions to label. We should applaud that. But before we mangle out a champagne, it’s value observant that not all of a food companies that announced skeleton to tag have taken a clever position on labeling. Equally important, four out of a five companies announced skeleton to tag after a Senate bill to preempt Vermont’s labeling law failed, though before a Senate has a possibility to come back with an nice chronicle of a check after Congress earnings on Apr 4 from Easter recess.

Is there something some-more to these new announcements than only a need to approve with Vermont’s law? As in, a plan to peace consumers into complacency, while during a same time forcing Congress to give food companies what they’ve wanted all along—a giveaway pass on labeling?

It’s also value observant that all of a companies that have suggested skeleton to tag adamantly urge a “safety” of GMOs—without once mentioning a fact that a immeasurable infancy of GMO crops, from that GMO food mixture are derived, are sprayed with glyphosate, classified final year by a World Health Organization as “a illusive tellurian carcinogen.” Clearly, we have a prolonged approach to go before food companies acknowledge a harmful consequences of a GMO monoculture indication on a environment, tellurian health and tellurian warming.

Who’s labeling, and why?

Campbell’s Soup Co. CPB (NYSE), General Mills (NYSE:GIS), Mars and Kellogg’s (NYSE: K) and ConAgra Foods(NYSE CAG) have all announced they will tag GMOs in time to approve with Vermont’s Jul 1 deadline, and in suitability with a Vermont law’s standards. The companies contend that any costs compared with labeling won’t be upheld on to consumers—a explain that deflates one of a industry’s long-standing, despite customarily debunked, arguments that GMO labeling will lead to aloft food prices for consumers.

Campbell’s was initial out of a gate, and a initial to mangle with a GMA on a lobbying group’s non-negotiable position opposite imperative labeling. After spending a half a million dollars to assistance better California’s Proposition 37 list beginning that would have mandated labels, Campbell’s now says a association supports a imperative sovereign labeling solution. Following Campbell’s Jan. 1 announcement, we reached out to explain what a soup association would do if Vermont’s law were preempted during a sovereign level. A Campbell’s orator responded by observant that regardless of what happens in Congress, Campbell’s products will be labeled, with a difference “partially constructed with genetic engineering,” in all 50 states. On a surface, that’s good news. But let’s not forget that a sovereign labeling check could dissuade companies from copy those, or identical difference on a label, in a seductiveness of preventing food producers from “stigmatizing” biotechnology.

Similarly, we reached out to General Mills, Mars and Kellogg’s this week seeking for construction on their positions. Kellogg’s responded, though wouldn’t yield answers to a approach questions, referring us instead to a central statement (which doesn’t answer a questions). We haven’t nonetheless listened behind from ConAgra, though we did accept responses from General Mills and Mars.

When asked if General Mills now supports a imperative sovereign labeling solution, Mike Siemienas, manager of code media relations, told us in an email that a cereal hulk is “supportive of a indication identical to what is used for organic products.”  In other words, voluntary, not mandatory. Asked if General Mills would tag a GMO products according to Vermont standards even if Congress were to preempt Vermont, Siemienas wrote: “… we would approve with any law that Congress passes.” We took that as a no.

But General Mills appears (so far) to be alone in stability to side with a GMA on hostile imperative labeling laws. Jonathan Mudd, Mars’ tellurian executive of media relations, told us by email that Mars, like Campbell’s, supports “the investiture of a imperative inhabitant labeling system.” Mudd also reliable that Mars will tag a products “consistent with Vermont” regardless of either or not Vermont is preempted “because we trust in consumer transparency.” Mars pitched in $376,000 to better California’s Proposition 37. But after anti-labeling food companies became boycott targets following a better of Prop 37, Mars sat out identical battles in Washington State (2013) and Oregon (2014).

Campbell’s and Mars both cited a “need to equivocate a 50-state patchwork” of labeling laws as their reason for ancillary a imperative sovereign solution, as against to ancillary states’ rights to pass GMO labeling laws. On a surface, a patchwork evidence competence sound rational—until we consider a fact that there are some-more than 100 state laws, governing food labeling, including a Vermont maple syrup labeling law, and a Minnesota law ruling a labeling of furious rice. None of these laws ever combined “chaos” in a marketplace, as U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has warned about Vermont’s GMO labeling law. And nothing were ever against with a same relentless determination, most reduction intemperate spending, as GMO labeling laws. Maybe since nothing of them influenced Monsanto’s bottom line?

Pages: 1 • 2